THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206941. March 9, 2016.]

MILAGROSA JOCSON , petitioner, vs. NELSON SAN MIGUEL ,

respondent.

DECISION

REYES , J : p

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated October 29, 2012 and
Resolution 3 dated April 16, 2013 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
122007, which allowed the application of the "fresh-period rule" in the ling of a Notice
of Appeal to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Of ce of
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD).
Facts of the Case
On September 10, 2008, Milagrosa C. Jocson (Jocson) led with the DARAB-
PARAD, Region III of San Fernando City, Pampanga, a Complaint 4 for ejectment with
damages against respondent Nelson San Miguel (San Miguel) and all persons claiming
rights under him. The case was docketed as DARAB Case No. 6291-P'08.
In the Complaint, Jocson alleged that she is the registered owner of a parcel of
agricultural land with an area of 60,241 square meters, located in Magalang, Pampanga
covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 473856-R. She asserted that 56,000 sq.m.
thereof became the subject of an Agricultural Leasehold Contract 5 (Contract) between
her and San Miguel, with the latter as tenant-lessee. As part of the contract, they agreed
that the subject landholding shall be devoted to sugar and rice production. 6
According to Jocson, San Miguel, however, occupied the entire landholding and
refused to vacate the portion not covered by their Contract despite repeated demands.
7

On December 15, 2009, Jocson led a Supplemental Complaint 8 alleging that,

during the pendency of the present suit, San Miguel commenced to plant corn on the
subject landholding which violated their Contract. 9
In his Answer, 10 San Miguel maintained that he had religiously complied with all
the terms and conditions of their Contract and that Jocson has no valid ground to eject
him from the disputed landholding. 11
PARAD Decision
On January 26, 2011, PARAD Provincial Adjudicator Vicente Aselo S. Sicat (PA
Sicat) rendered a Decision, 12 the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. TERMINATING the existing leasehold contract of the parties as well
as their tenancy relationship;
2. ORDERING [San Miguel] and all persons claiming rights under him
to peacefully vacate and surrender the land to [Jocson];
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 3. DISMISSING all other claims for want of evidence.
No costs.
SO ORDERED. 13
San Miguel led a Motion for Reconsideration 14 (MR) dated February 10, 2011
but it was denied in an Order 15 dated May 31, 2011.
On June 15, 2011, 16 San Miguel filed his Notice of Appeal. 17
Thereafter, on June 28, 2011, Jocson led an Omnibus Motion to: (i) expunge the
Notice of Appeal from the records of the present case; (ii) dismiss the said appeal; and
(iii) issue a writ of execution. 18 She alleged that the Notice of Appeal led by San
Miguel was led not in accordance with the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure,
speci cally the non-payment of appeal fee and the failure to attach therein a
Certification against Non-Forum Shopping pursuant to Section 2, Rule IV of the Rules. 19
On July 27, 2011, PA Sicat issued an Order 20 denying due course to San Miguel's
Notice of Appeal and thereafter declared the case nal and executory. Aside from
failure to pay the required appeal fee and to attach the required certi cation, the PARAD
held that the Notice of Appeal was likewise filed out of time. 21 CAIHTE

The PARAD held that under Section 12, Rule X of the 2003 DARAB Rules of
Procedure, "[t]he ling of the Motion for Reconsideration shall interrupt the period to
perfect an appeal. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party shall have the remaining
period within which to perfect his appeal. Said period shall not be less than five (5) days
in any event, reckoned from the receipt of the notice of denial." 22
The PARAD found that San Miguel, through his counsel, received his copy of
Decision dated January 26, 2011 on February 3, 2011 and thereafter led his MR on
February 15, 2011, thus, he could have only three (3) days within which to le his Notice
of Appeal upon its denial. The MR was denied on May 31, 2011 and San Miguel, through
his counsel, received his copy of the Order on June 2, 2011 and he led his Notice of
Appeal on June 15, 2011 or after twelve (12) days, which, following the rules
abovementioned, is already beyond the period allowed. 23
San Miguel led his MR 24 but the same was denied in an Order 25 dated October
18, 2011, which likewise directed the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the
decision rendered by the PARAD.
Undaunted, San Miguel led a Petition for Certiorari 26 (with a Prayer for a
Temporary Restraining Order and Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction)
with the CA.
San Miguel argued that the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure adopted the "fresh
period rule" enunciated by this Court in Neypes v. CA 27 to the effect that it allows
litigants a fresh period of 15 days within which to le a notice of appeal, counted from
receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration as
provided for under Section 1, Rule IV of the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure. 28
Ruling of the CA
On October 29, 2012, the CA issued a Decision 29 granting San Miguel's petition
and remanding the case to the DARAB-PARAD for further proceedings. The CA held that
the "fresh period rule" enunciated in Neypes should be applied in the instant case. The
CA decision reads in part:
The "fresh period rule" is a procedural law as it prescribes a fresh period
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 of 15 days within which an appeal may be made in the event that the motion for
reconsideration is denied by the lower court. Following the rule on retroactivity
of procedural laws, the "fresh period rule" should be applied to pending actions,
such as the case at bar. The raison d'etre for the "fresh period rule" is to
standardize the appeal period provided in the Rules of Court and do away with
the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should be counted. Thus,
the 15-day period to appeal is no longer interrupted by the ling of a
motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration . Litigants today need
not concern themselves with counting the balance of the 15-day period to
appeal since the 15-day period is now counted from receipt of the order
dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration or any nal
order or resolution. 30 (Citation omitted and emphasis in the original)
Jocson filed her MR but it was denied in a Resolution 31 dated April 16, 2013.
Hence, the present petition.
Issues
Jocson argued that the CA committed grave abuse and substantial error of
judgment amounting to errors of law:
I. IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE 2003 DARAB RULES OF
PROCEDURE TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY SAN MIGUEL AND
UPHOLDING THE APPLICATION OF THE "FRESH PERIOD RULE" PROVIDED
UNDER THE NEW 2009 DARAB RULES OF PROCEDURE WHICH TOOK
EFFECT DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS SUIT BEFORE THE PARAD, IN
THE CASE AT BAR.
II. IN APPLYING THE NEYPES RULING IN THE INSTANT CASE INSTEAD OF
THE RULING IN PANOLINO V. TAJALA 32 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
ASSAILED ORDERS WERE NOT ISSUED BY A COURT. 33
Ruling of the Court
This Court finds the petition to be meritorious.
Application of the 2003 DARAB
Rules of Procedure
San Miguel alleged that due to the effectivity of the 2009 DARAB Rules of
Procedure, its provisions should be applied instead of the 2003 DARAB Rules of
Procedure.
This Court rules in the negative.
It must be noted that Section 1, Rule XXIV of the 2009 DARAB Rules of
Procedure explicitly states that:
Sec. 1. Transitory Provisions. — These Rules shall govern all cases led on or
after its effectivity. All cases pending with the Board and the
Adjudicators, prior to the date of effectivity of these Rules, shall be
governed by the DARAB Rules prevailing at the time of their ling .
(Emphasis ours)
In the present case, the Complaint was led on September 10, 2008 prior to the
date of effectivity of the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure on September 1, 2009. Thus,
pursuant to the above-cited rule, the applicable rule in the counting of the period for
ling a Notice of Appeal with the Board is governed by Section 12, Rule X of the 2003
DARAB Rules of Procedure, which states that:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 The ling of the Motion for Reconsideration shall interrupt the period to perfect
an appeal. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party shall have the remaining
period within which to perfect his appeal. Said period shall not be less than ve
(5) days in any event, reckoned from the receipt of the notice of denial. DETACa

Application of the "fresh period

rule" enunciated in the Neypes
ruling
This Court likewise nds no merit to San Miguel's contention that the "fresh
period rule" laid down in Neypes is applicable in the instant case.
In Panolino, this Court held that the "fresh period rule" only covers judicial
proceedings under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to wit:
The "fresh period rule" in Neypes declares:
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules
and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the
Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within
which to le the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court,
counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new
trial or motion for reconsideration.
Henceforth, this "fresh period rule" shall also apply to Rule
40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the
Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the
Regional Trial Courts to the [CA]; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-
judicial agencies to the [CA]; and Rule 45 governing appeals by
certiorari to the Supreme Court. The new rule aims to regiment or
make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the
order denying the motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration
(whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution.
xxx xxx xxx
As re ected in the above-quoted portion of the decision in Neypes, the
"fresh period rule" shall apply to Rule 40 (appeals from the Municipal Trial
Courts to the Regional Trial Courts); Rule 41 (appeals from the Regional Trial
Courts to the [CA] or Supreme Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the Regional Trial
Courts to the [CA]); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the [CA]);
and Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court). Obviously, these
Rules cover judicial proceedings under the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure .
Petitioner's present case is administrative in nature involving an appeal
from the decision or order of the DENR regional of ce to the DENR Secretary.
Such appeal is indeed governed by Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 87,
Series of 1990. As earlier quoted, Section 1 clearly provides that if the motion
for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal "during the
remainder of the period of appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution of
denial;" whereas if the decision is reversed, the adverse party has a fresh 15-day
period to perfect his appeal. 34 (Citation omitted and emphasis ours)
The same principle was applied in the recent case of San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders
and Developers Group, Inc. and Oscar Violago v. Ma. Cristina F. Bayang , 35 wherein this
Court reiterated that the "fresh period rule" in Neypes applies only to judicial appeals
and not to administrative appeals.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 In the present case, the appeal from a decision of the Provincial Adjudicator to
the DARAB as provided for under Section 1, Rule XIV of the 2003 DARAB Rules of
Procedure, is not judicial but administrative in nature. As such, the "fresh period rule" in
Neypes finds no application therein.
As correctly observed by PA Sicat, San Miguel should perfect his appeal during
the remainder of the period of appeal, but not less than ve (5) days, reckoned from
receipt of the resolution of denial of his MR or until June 7, 2011.
As a nal note, it is worthy to emphasize that the right to appeal is not a natural
right or a part of due process, but is merely a statutory privilege that may be exercised
only in the manner prescribed by law. The right is unavoidably forfeited by the litigant
who does not comply with the manner thus prescribed. In addition, the liberal
application of rules of procedure for perfecting appeals is still the exception, and not
the rule; and it is only allowed in exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest
of justice. 36 This exceptional situation, however, does not obtain in this case.
WHEREFORE , in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is
hereby GRANTED . The Decision dated October 29, 2012 and Resolution dated April 16,
2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122007 are hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE . The Orders dated July 27, 2011 and October 18, 2011 of the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator are hereby REINSTATED .
SO ORDERED . aDSIHc

Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Perez and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 9-26.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C.
Lantion and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring; id. at 27-38.
3. Id. at 39-41.

4. Id. at 64-68.
5. Id. at 264-266.
6. Id. at 64-65, 264.

7. Id. at 29.
8. Id. at 284-287.

9. Id. at 284-285.
10. Id. at 288-290.

11. Id.
12. Id. at 90-92.
13. Id. at 91-92.

14. Id. at 93-96.

15. Id. at 106-107.

16. Id. at 123.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 17. Id. at 108-109.

18. Id. at 118-122.

19. Id. at 118-120.
20. Id. at 123-125.

21. Id. at 123-124.

22. Id. at 123.

23. Id. at 124.

24. Id. at 126-129.
25. Id. at 130-131.
26. Id. at 134-157.

27. 506 Phil. 613 (2005).

28. Rollo, p. 150.
29. Id. at 27-38.
30. Id. at 36.

31. Id. at 39-41.

32. 636 Phil. 313 (2010).
33. Rollo, p. 17.
34. Panolino v. Tajala, supra note 32, at 317-319.
35. G.R. No. 194702, April 20, 2015.

36. Cadena v. Civil Service Commission, 679 Phil. 165, 176-177 (2012).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com